"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:mailman.437.1331414346.4860.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>
> True. But I found Linux far more superior in terms of being usable on
> very old hardware.
There have been exceptions to that: About 10-12 years ago, GNOME (or at
least Nautlus) and KDE were *insanely* bloated to the pount of making
Win2k/XP seem ultra-lean.

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:jjgi8v$p1s$1@digitalmars.com...
> Walter:
>
>> I'm talking about the name change. It's far and away the most common
>> thing I
>> have to edit when moving code from D1 <=> D2.
>
> We need good/better ways to manage Change and make it faster and less
> painful, instead of refusing almost all change right now.
> Things like more fine-graded deprecation abilities, smarter error messages
> in libraries that suggest how to fix the code, tools that update the code
> (py2to3 or the Go language tool to update the programs), things like the
> strange "future" built-in Python package, and so on.
>
+1

"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message
news:jjgkb8$s1f$1@digitalmars.com...
> "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:jjgi8v$p1s$1@digitalmars.com...
>> Walter:
>>
>>> I'm talking about the name change. It's far and away the most common
>>> thing I
>>> have to edit when moving code from D1 <=> D2.
>>
>> We need good/better ways to manage Change and make it faster and less
>> painful, instead of refusing almost all change right now.
>> Things like more fine-graded deprecation abilities, smarter error
>> messages in libraries that suggest how to fix the code, tools that update
>> the code (py2to3 or the Go language tool to update the programs), things
>> like the strange "future" built-in Python package, and so on.
>>
>
> +1
To elaborate on that, stagnation with thinks that should have been *just
fixed* is one of the reasons I got fed up with C++ and went looking for an
alternative (and found D). I hate to see D starting to jump into the same
boat so soon.

"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message
news:jjgkf6$s6h$1@digitalmars.com...
> "Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message
> news:jjgkb8$s1f$1@digitalmars.com...
>> "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote in message
>> news:jjgi8v$p1s$1@digitalmars.com...
>>> Walter:
>>>
>>>> I'm talking about the name change. It's far and away the most common
>>>> thing I
>>>> have to edit when moving code from D1 <=> D2.
>>>
>>> We need good/better ways to manage Change and make it faster and less
>>> painful, instead of refusing almost all change right now.
>>> Things like more fine-graded deprecation abilities, smarter error
>>> messages in libraries that suggest how to fix the code, tools that
>>> update the code (py2to3 or the Go language tool to update the programs),
>>> things like the strange "future" built-in Python package, and so on.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>
> To elaborate on that, stagnation with thinks that should have been *just
> fixed* is one of the reasons I got fed up with C++ and went looking for an
> alternative (and found D). I hate to see D starting to jump into the same
> boat so soon.
>
And seriously, name changes are one hell of a *trivial* breaking change.
Some people here makes it sound like name changes are akin to...I
dunno...banning templates or something.
I happily switched from C++ to D. *That's* a "breaking change".

On 3/10/2012 3:49 PM, bearophile wrote:
> Walter:
>
>> I'm talking about the name change. It's far and away the most common thing I
>> have to edit when moving code from D1<=> D2.
>
> We need good/better ways to manage Change and make it faster and less painful, instead of refusing almost all change right now.
> Things like more fine-graded deprecation abilities, smarter error messages in libraries that suggest how to fix the code, tools that update the code (py2to3 or the Go language tool to update the programs), things like the strange "future" built-in Python package, and so on.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile
I would think if a language designed in a migration path that worked it
would allow things to be more fluid (on the library and language side).
This is one thing I believe has really hurt C++, since the 'good
words' like null couldn't be used they had to settle for dumber names
like nullptr_t. From what I gather D's way 'out' is abuse of @
I would much rather the language be able to expand its turf at the
expense of the existing codebases, as long as there was a way to
_migrate the code cleanly_.
I envision something like this would work:
In addition to the 'module mypackage.mymodule' statement at the top of
each file, should be a version number of D of some sort that the code
was last built against. A very high level language revision like D1 or D2.
Newer compilers would maintain the previous front-ends ability to parse
these older files, purely for the sake of outputing TODO-like messages
for how to upgrade the codebase to a newer version.
A simple example right now from D1 to D2 would be the way floating point
literals are parsed is no longer compatible. The UFCS changes could
silently break existing code in theory and probably should be pointed
out in some way before upgrading code from D1 to D2.

On 10/03/12 20:38, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/10/2012 11:31 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> I still like the name better. Do we really need an alphabet soup
>> appended to
>> "write" just to spit out one string?
>
> It's not about whether it was a better name. It was about having to
> constantly edit code.
But... writefln is still there. Is it incompatible with the D1 one in
some way?
-Lars

On 3/10/2012 4:22 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "H. S. Teoh"<hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message
> news:mailman.437.1331414346.4860.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>>
>> True. But I found Linux far more superior in terms of being usable on
>> very old hardware.
>
> There have been exceptions to that: About 10-12 years ago, GNOME (or at
> least Nautlus) and KDE were *insanely* bloated to the pount of making
> Win2k/XP seem ultra-lean.
>
>
Both KDE and Gnome UIs and apps using these Uis still feel very sluggish
to me on a modern machine. I don't get this feeling at all on Win7,
even on a much slower machine (my laptop for instance).

Am 10.03.2012 20:52, schrieb H. S. Teoh:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:27:20PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Adam D. Ruppe"<destructionator@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:tfdzpwcijnavdalmnzit@forum.dlang.org...
>>> On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 18:57:10 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>>> It can hardly be called a success technology-wise.
>>>
>>> It is significantly ahead of its competition at the time.
>>
>> And it was a big advancement over 3.1. Pre-emptive multitasking
>> anyone?
> [...]
>
> I thought the Unix world has had that years before Windows. But not in
> the consumer PC market, I suppose.
>
> But 3.1 was such a sad mess that just about *anything* would be an
> improvement on it.
>
>
> T
>
Sure it had pre-emptive multitasking.
On the other hand, on those days, UNIX had very nice guis called Motif,
NEWS and NeXTSTEP. Personally I think the only nice one was from NeXTSTEP.
Each version costed a few dollars more that what most house holds would
be willing to pay. And lets not forget that long before gcc became
famous, you would have to pay extra for the developer tools. Which in
some cases did cost as much as the OS itself.
And most importantly, there were almost no games, compared with what the
home markets had access to.
Yes I am aware of the dirty tricks Microsoft played on IBM, but actually
taking into consideration the way IBM managed OS/2, those tricks weren't
actually needed.
So in the end, for the people using PC compatibles, the only game in
town was Windows 9x.
--
Paulo

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 05:22:07PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message
> news:mailman.437.1331414346.4860.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> >
> > True. But I found Linux far more superior in terms of being usable
> > on very old hardware.
>
> There have been exceptions to that: About 10-12 years ago, GNOME (or
> at least Nautlus) and KDE were *insanely* bloated to the pount of
> making Win2k/XP seem ultra-lean.
[...]
Good thing I didn't use them then. :-)
But if I was installing Linux on ancient hardware, I wouldn't even dream
of install KDE or GNOME. I mean, X11 itself is already a resource hog,
nevermind something built on top of it. I only installed X11 'cos I had
to use a GUI browser. (I would've stuck with Lynx if it had been able to
render tables the way elinks can today.)
T
--
"I'm not childish; I'm just in touch with the child within!" - RL

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 05:16:15PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message
> news:mailman.439.1331415624.4860.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
[...]
> > Sad to say, recent versions of Opera (and Firefox) have become
> > massive memory and disk hogs. I still mainly use Opera because I
> > like the interface better,
>
> I couldn't beleive that Opera actually *removed* the native "skin"
> (even what joke it was in the first place) in the latest versions.
> That's why my Opera installation is staying put at v10.62.
While I noticed that Opera's UI seems to be undergoing all sorts of
overhauls recently, I didn't bother to find out what changed/didn't
change. My custom setup disables most of the toolbars anyway, so I don't
really notice. :-)
> Which reminds me, I still need to figure out what domain it contacts
> to check whether or not to incessently nag me about *cough*
> "upgrading" *cough*, so I can ban the damn thing via my hosts file.
Umm... you *could* just point Opera at opera:config, then search for
"Disable Opera Package AutoUpdate", y'know...
> > And people keep talking about web apps and the browser as a
> > "platform". Sigh.
>
> Yea. There's even an entire company dedicated to pushing that moronic
> agenda (*and* tracking you like Big Brother). They're called
> "Microsoft Mark 2"...erm...wait...I mean "Google".
lol...
[...]
> > We get a kickback from our hardware manufacturers and we sell more
> > software without actually adding any new features! It's a win-win
> > situation!"
> >
>
> That's one of the reasons I despise the modern-day Epic and Valve:
> *Complete* graphics whores (not to mention Microsoft sluts,
> particularly in Epic's case), and I don't believe for a second that
> what you've described isn't the exact nature of...what does Epic call
> it? Some sort of "Alliance" with NVIDIA and ATI that Epic was so
> *publically* proud of. Fuck Cliffy, Sweeny, "Fat Fuck" Newell, et al.
> Shit, and Epic actually used to be pretty good back in their
> "Megagames" days.
[...]
I root for indie games. That's where the real creativity's at.
Creativity has died in big-budget games years ago.
> > Or solving the travelling salesman problem.
>
> That's aready been solved. Haven't you heard of eCommerce? j/k ;)
[...]
lol!
T
--
Public parking: euphemism for paid parking. -- Flora